what about mages?

25% attack and defense doesnt prevent 2 mages from aoe shoting all the enemies

harpo

Booo! This might seem like a clever fix to make attacking enemies harder (thereby making the game more difficult). In reality it is going to punish the AI as much as it punishes the player.

How about increasing armor levels of town garrisons when better armor has been researched instead?

StevenAus: Yeah, as far as I know, this has been suggested numerous times. They could have at least leather, maybe armor one level lower than current tech with some special building?

Armor upgrades for militia could be linked to special technology branch, building...many options would be suitable.

Much better than docking points when you go into enemy territory - which also makes it harder for AIs to take your OWN cities too.  And it also has the benefit of making towns more resilient to monster attacks too.

For the -25% reduction in attack and defense, via Derek's own criteria for assessing ideas:

1.  Maybe, maybe not.

2.  Sort of, maybe not.  Creates other problems.

3.  No, creates problems.

4.  Definitely not.

5.  Easy.

6.  No, I don't think gamers will enjoy it.

For increasing armor of garrison troops:

1.  Yes.

2.  Yes.

3.  Yes, solves at least two different problems, probably a lot more.

4.  Yes, it does, because people will know that a town won't fall to one Ignys or only a moderate hero.

5.  Easy.

6.  Yes, I think they will.

These are Derek's own criteria.

That is a very good idea, but the attack should be increased, too, because otherwise the garrison would not be able to kill armored enemies.

It's not about improving AI first and formost. It's to make defending better, wars more interesting and to increase the benefits of controlling land. It will be a little bit easier to defend home territory in war for both the human and the AI, and that's needed. It's both realistic and good for gameplay. Gameplaywise because a good garnison can now be more worthwhile investing in, and also because you now can dare to send more units out exploring and questing, making the mid game flow better. It's not so fun with blitzkriegs all the time, killing an enemy empire in very few turns with little strategy needed for a long drawned out war.

It's far too easy to be on the offensive right now, but spells that make damage needs to get the same maluses as ordinary attacks, magic is powerfull enough as it is. Monsters shouldn't be easier to kill inside your own territory I think, or maybe they should..... It would add an extra strategy to expanding your boarders.

The garrison is supposed to be just a basic defensive force, not an obstacle for a sovereign-led army. You can station additional units in a city to further defend it. I find garrisons satisfactory as they are in .983, and now they are a little bigger, which makes a lot of sense, because they're just armed peasants, they may be many, but are still weak units.

If anyone is strongly against this, they can easily mod it for themselves to fit their tastes. But overall, I find it fine as it is.

You would also have to increase magic resistance of defenders in towns to match increased defense against melee or you will bias towards town assaults based on magic damage as 0.984 will, unless that's intended.

Increased the amount of free city defenders at all levels - Yay

I'm a bit saddened to see the attack and defense penalty in hostile lands return. It feels completely artificial and, like StevenAus pointed out, doesn't really match Derek's own criteria for good game features.

It just shows that what this game realy needs is a propper siege mechanic. If not actual siege battles (with walls and siege engines) then at the very least a simple delay between starting a siege and fighting the battle (the length of the delay depending on factors like city walls, siege engines, casting offensive or defensive spells, etc). I know neither has ever been on the table for FE sadly enough, but I hope it is something that can be done in a future update/expansion.

But this value is manipulatable, I imagine.  Can be altered besed on difficulty level, or a global reduction in AI penalty. 

Agreed. This mechanic seems WAY too artificial.

As Wizard1200 recommended, more strategic spells should be made available to attack incoming forces.

If defense really needs an extra boost, than have entering an agressive ZoC end the movement (just like river tiles). This will guarentee AI have a chance to respond.

I don't understand how you are comparing the -25% to ATK/DEF to an alternative of raising DEF (possibly ATK) of garrison troops. 

First of all, Garrison troops would need to present in huge numbers and be pretty much God mode to be more than a speed bump for any (even AI) soverein's army.

Secondly, this actually REMOVES control and interaction for the player, as you just have to research a few things here, raise a town level there, and voila!  They just exist. 

I am FAR MORE interested in having to make decisions about making choices about how many troops to send in to invade, versus how many to keep in defense.  If you have the initiative/momentum and can create armies to attack, do it.  If you have a reasonable army, but perhaps not enough to fully attack, you can harrass the fringes or try to get them to attack, wear down their force through attrition and then counterattack. 

Lastly, in an indirect way, it might make people consider other forms of winning the game.

Like I said, it is a manipulatable number I am sure, so they can balance or make changes where needed in the future.

edit:  I will agree that the above poster that using less movement and/or initiative is another viable options.  I am curious how people feel about the two different mothods.

Another vote against hostile lands penalty. I'm not sold on simply slapping armor on militia as a fix either, but I would prefer it over the hostile lands penalty by far.

Please rethink this one, Derek!

Maybe instead of a -25% attack and defense penalty, how about accuracy and dodge penalty instead?  I still don't like it, but it seems less crushing.  Or maybe just in enemy cities.

Yep a - 10 penalty to Accuracy, Dodge, Spell Mastery and Spell Resistance would be a great compromise.

Huzzah! Those waterfalls have been fully chased into submission.

More huzzah! No more ear bleeding.

Will this penalty show up as an effect/spell on the units? And is that true in both enemy AI and unconquered regions like the Wildlands?

This certainly gives a buff to ZoC and makes it function beyond being able to see the map better and gather resources. -25% does seem a bit harsh.

Decreasing initiative makes more sense than atk and def.

You would expect troops moving through enemy territory to be more cautious, so a slightly reduced initiative makes sense.

Totally agree. And it also seems to be more realistic, in that it would act like sort of a moral penalty: I always think that defending a city is a more commited and determined deed because you're fighting for your home and "family", than attacking.

I still think that increasing the number of defending units would not do much because, for what I've experienced, they are just wimpy enough that they go down quite fast. Then again, after reading all the damage decrease in weapons and spells, would have to test this again.

Have we heard anything about a today release by the way?

I was going for more of an earned city defense. I will of course play today and test it out, but the -25% has scaling problems and takes no effort by the defender. It also makes the AI easily gamed on tight border disputes, unless you can teach the AI to never enter my territory, unless it is B-lining for a city. Most AI armies spend lots of turns attacking my outposts before going after a city. That means I get several attacks before they reach a city with this new penalty. I will just rush the city, so they don't get the same advantage. Again, need to play to be sure, just an opinion on a Thursday morning.

My goal was to stop early rushes. More units in cities will do that. After the rush is no longer possible, we are mostly talking about how hard sieging should be. The ZoC advantage makes all levels of defense easier. I actually thought the open land battles were pretty well balanced. This new change makes some sense given that campaigns in foreign territory would weaken an army in certain situations. I can guess that your logic is to prevent defense from having a positive effect on troops. I see why that would be a design consideration. I still think that besides the early rush prevention, a progressively earned defense is the way to go.

The earned part should be going up the economically barren Warfare tree to get those defenders to scale with the velocity of hero and troop power. It's a simple fix to me to get armor and weapons for defenders. It is earned, it isn't too powerful, since these units have a low level and spawnrating. In my tests (read as mod) I still easily walk through cities with a full army because I have well leveled troops and fireballs a plenty. There is no danger of making cities too strong, as long as the game has a few ways to counter city defense. That should be the goal for balancing strategic conquest. City defense strategies and ways to counter them. The counter to a ZoC penalty is to be stronger. Really you would need to bring many more troops to combat how easily they will die. There is a little nuance in how a player will deal with the penalty. But I am guessing the AI will not handle it well in many situations where the player is relying on it to ambush more powerful units. The penalty may cause problems for the AI.

I want to be clear that I am happy that you listened to my suggestion and I applaud your prompt response and thoughtful changes. I was the one that wanted a better defense and now I have it. I will do these changes some justice and play with them. Thanks for listening.

One thing is clear, however it's done, defending home territory needs to be improved if we want grand scale wars to feel more epic.

The suggestions I've heard here that I like the least are more defensive spells in home territory, making spells and magic even more powerfull and the only right way to go. This is also a potential AI crippler of dimensions.

Sieges are the best, but this is a new feature for an expansion pack.

The alternatives we are left with is this 25% attack and defence malus, or we could use intiative too perhaps, but I think players would find that more frustrating, being slaughtered on the battlefield and never get the chance too move..... I really hope it will work out good.

We could also add slower healing speed in enemy lands, but that's not enough, just a little supplement.

Like Sean here I'm also abit worried about potential exploitation of the AI, for instance letting them attack you and bleed out before you go on a counterattack to their land. Hopefully it will work out. I can't wait to test it.